Talk:The Da Vinci Code (book)

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The movie

It would be good to continue to work on this article (it looks pretty good already). If you haven't yet seen, a movie is being made that is to come out shortly, and one caption (if I remember right) was "seek the truth". This personally worries me, and I would love for Theopedia to have a rock solid article that is inviting and simplistic enough to engage and inform laymen. JordanBarrett 16:17, 11 January 2006 (EST)

The Bible Canon

The canon was actually not officially closed until the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. The Jewish Council of Jamnia officially canonized the Old Testament in the latter first century. The Bible was not assembled at 200 A.D. as this article states.

Acedaroflebanon 18:21, 12 March 2006 (EST)

I refer Acedaroflebanon to Development of the NT canon section in Theopedia for further discussion of this. I believe the evidence is that there was a de facto canon by 200 AD though it would not become de jure until much later. We're protestants here, you know ;-) and less inclined to lean too heavily on the judicial process, once the Holy Spirit has done his work. mrd Mrd 00:41, 29 April 2006 (PDT)
The article does say that "By 200 A.D., the majority of the New Testament was established." I see what you mean, but I think we'll gather more criticism than necessary if we push the idea that the issue of what was Scripture was pretty much concluded by 200 AD. Reading the rest of the paragraph here on Theopedia also seemed to say that although we had most of the books set, there were still many disputes and other church fathers left out books we now have today. I'm just hesitant, but am definitely up for hearing more thoughts. JordanBarrett (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Much more professional tone needed

This article reads like a rant and will not be taken seriously until it patronizing tone is changed. Readers are not mass media victims and your elitist definition as to what constitutes "literature" reveals a truly inaccurate understanding of the very term. The novel is historical FICTION -- your insistence on overlooking this basic fact undermines any of the "truth" claims you are trying to make. People read fictions novels for fun, and that's all this book is. - Rnl April 28, 2006

  • from my scanning of the web I think there is very widespread agreement in both the Christian and non-Christian communities that The Da Vinci code a) presents itself as "fact" and b) is very inaccurate
  • there is widespread agreement within the orthodox Christian community that Theopedia represents that the "liberal myth of scripture origins" is inaccurate
  • I did some research into just what the "rules" are for "historical fiction" (one link is at the bottom of the article) and I concluded that TDVC breaks the rules or, as I wrote "breaks faith with the reader."
  • I'm glad you agree that "fun" is all that this novel is. Unfortunately there is growing evidence that many people think it is "truth" (I give one example reference in the Vancouver Sun). One random Web example [1]:
    • "The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. 5 stars. Very Rich in Plot And Interesting Research! ... What makes The Da Vinci Code several levels above the average thriller is Brown's ability to use the impeccable research he did to provide a fascinating interpretation of Western history and to describe historical events that are as interesting as the suspenseful murder investigation itself. I think that if you can put aside whatever your strong personal beliefs are about "the Truth" and not take the book too seriously, you'll consider The Da Vinci Code to be among the most interesting and entertaining novels you've read in a long time.
  • I based my statement that this is not literature on a discussion that I had with a friend who is a full professor of English Literature at UBC. I have just scanned the web and found lots of criticisms (e.g. [2]) but no one defending it as literature. Mike Mrd 00:21, 29 April 2006 (PDT)
This article is in work, but I do think it is still in need of some hefty edits. Hopefully we can accomplish this before the movie comes out (May 19th I think). JordanBarrett (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Base content?

Where did the original content come from here? It appears Mrd added it, but it was added mostly in one large edit. Was it copied from somewhere? Was it an original work? Just curious. I'm looking at doing some edits, but if this is someone's original stuff I want to work with them on it. JordanBarrett (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

  • Hi Jordan. I wrote this article in Notepad and then inserted it (I was having trouble at that time with people editing my early drafts if I did the first drafts in the Wiki). I was influenced by N.T. Wright, as noted, but most of it is my original work based on my reading of the novel.
  • I note the "Rant" comment above, and can see some advantages in toning the article down a bit, but strongly recommend the following provisoes:
    • let's not neuter it -- there is no need for articles to be dry ot stale to be authoritative; and
    • let's not duplicate the Wikipedia "no point of view" approach. They have done that and now we are providing an orthodox Christian interpretation. Let's be opinionated unapologetically. Mike Mrd 23:56, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Agreed, Mike. My intentions (and I believe others) are not to water it down or go NPOV. I took the "rant" above as a "this article needs some cleanup" and that's it. I'm sorting through some resources and if I get any great ideas for major edits I'll run it by here and see what everyone thinks. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

I think the article is very good as is. A Rant is "vehement oratory" or "heated dialogue with no real substance." This is not the case with our article. There will always be opportunity for modest improvements here and there in any article, but I wouldn't over react to one detractor. The thrust of the article is right on and needs stating. Gomarus 04:57, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Removal

I removed the following:

If The Da Vinci Code simply valorized gnostic fertility cults, Christians would label it as a false religion and a spiritual counterfeit, but not as a heresy.

I didn't get what this was trying to say. We would label it a false religion but not heresy? If that's the case, there needs to be more detail as to why and how we are to distinguish the two and how this connects to the book. JordanBarrett (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

I think the point was, if the Davinci code simply promoted gnostic cults (as truth vs. Christianity) it would merely be viewed as "false religion," but to attack the person of Christ crosses over the line into heresy. But as you observed, it's not well stated. Gomarus 12:37, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

NT Canon

I removed the short sentence that said the NT canon was complete (or agreed upon) in 200 A.D. Either this needs a major source, or it should remain removed. Personally, I've never heard/read such a thing and have always believed it wasn't fully agreed upon by the Church until later than 200 AD. Any thoughts welcomed. JordanBarrett (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

see my note above under The Bible Canon mike Mrd 15:27, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Format

Instead of changing it back and forth, lets figure out the flow we want. Gomarus changed it, Mike changed it back. What's everyone's reasonings here? JordanBarrett (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Personally, I liked the format Gomarus had set up. Thoughts? JordanBarrett (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2006 (PDT)
Okay, I'm not an expert on format and I certainly haven't contributed (yet) to this article, however, I have a few thoughts on the format. First of all, I would order them _Jesus according to The Da Vinci Code_, _Fertility cult as true religion_, _Is the Da Vinci Code heresy?_, _Is the Da Vinci Code Historical Fiction?_, _As literature and film_, and _Dealing with Fiction_. There are a few reasons for my suggestion. In the case of putting Jesus before the fertility cults, it gives the reader a dose of its major flaw, and THEN presents the mistakes that are built upon that foundation - which leads to the heresy conclusion. With the literary part of it, I've place lit/film before "Dealing with Fiction" for the simple reason that it makes more sense to learn how to respond after you have all the facts. That's my two cents -David 13:00, 10 May 2006 (PDT)
My only significant adjustment was to put "Jesus according to . . ." before "Fertility Cults" for the same reasoning David suggests, which order I still prefer. Even the chapter number references given support that order. :-) Gomarus 14:11, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

Needs Work

Hi folks, just a note that I am sorry that I left this da Vinci article hanging. I was on business in England last time, and my one-hour access to the internet cut me off in mid-edit, and I haven't had a chance to get back to it. With a couple of obligations out of the way, however, I hope to remedy that soon. I recommend the new MacLean's article as a marvellous secular critique. Mike Mrd 15:36, 14 May 2006 (PDT)

The THE

I know this is rather meta, but why does this article start with a THE?! Y'all fixed The Trinity, but this one already has one redirect to here with a "the". Can we please change this? Can we/I get rid of all the "the"s? Aquatiki 12:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "the" in the title? If so, I think it deserves to stay as the official title of the book. I agree, the rest of the "the's" need to go, or at least be moved to "Local Church, The". JordanBarrett (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that what I'm asking: when do we start an article with "the"? When it's the title of something? So we cut it out when we just use "the" in English for no reason (like "I've got to go the hospital." vs "I laid down to ___ bed.")? What is the policy for "the"'s and "a/an"'s and how they screw up alphabetized lists of pages? Aquatiki 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I imagine Aaron will be able to say more than I. My thought is this: unless it's a proper name, or the official title, don't use it. If "the" needs to be the title, put it at the end. Does this help? JordanBarrett (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to "MacLean's" article

Mike Mrd. Can you give a link to where this article is published. — unsigned comment by Gtatler (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:The_Da_Vinci_Code_(book)"
Personal tools